Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
If you don't have a bottomless well of outrage for all the issues that need addressing, it's because your outrage isn't in good health. It needs to work out every day and get massaged, oiled, and meditated on weekends. In some cases it may need rolfing.
I agree; and I laughed at this comment, because it's so close to home. My loved ones call it my "IQ" - my Irate Quotient. I need to fill my irate quotient every day, which gives me the energy and drive to take action. I suppose some people just don't have the energy for it, or just don't care enough. Most people don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect them; that's the nature of the beast.
I hope there are enough of us who do care and can get their IQ going every day to make a difference.
RE: marches/demonstrations: I don't agree that marches are ineffective, if done right. --karrsic
Marching done right is disruptive. We have to disrupt, repeatedly, to be effective. (It should also be fun!)
A march needs to be massive and halt traffic during business hours. It needs to make a really good story (with good visuals) for the MediaWhores. It should take place while Congress is in session and prevent officials and staff from getting to their jobs (or their lobbyist-hosted soirees). In contrast, it seems the trend in recent years has been to assemble docilely in the prescribed out-of-the-way place (Independence Mall, for example) at the permitted time (usually on a week-end, which minimizes disruption). The action must be repeated until the pressure of disruption is acutely felt by the politicians.
There are several 'camps' at Guantanamo in which conditions are extreme isolation. At one of those, at least, there is enough noise to prevent sleep. Damage from extreme isolation and sleep deprivation takes less than 10 days to start, no more than 30 to have permanent effects.
You want 6 months? No thanks. Move the prisoners first if placement is your only problem. You have no right to ask that someone undergo 6 more months of harsh, torturous incarceration just because you can't get your bureaucracy to move any faster. And if there are no takers among those other countries, follow Judge Urbina and Judge Leon's orders, and release them in the United States.
No one can speak to this with out knowing the security risks.
You did. What qualifies you?
President Elect Obama with full force of the bully pulpit should quickly denounce Guantanamo, torture, and the de-regulatory attitudes that have prevailed for the last eight years.
Each time Obama seems to falter on moral topics such as torture or Guantanamo, he should realize that his rhetoric on change is diminished. Each time he falters on the value of restoring habeas corpus and the rule of law, he demoralizes American's hopes of change for a better future.
If president Obama cannot get clear in his mind what is morally sound and have full faith in the principles of the constitution such as rule of law and due process, where will he sit on such ambiguous topics like the direction of the economy, which every economists tells us is in dire need of confidence.
Change is what the American electorate voted for and change is what we expect. And President Obama must deliver on his promises and not be a friend to every member of Congress as he seems to want to be. He cannot be everything to everyone. He must choose sides and not fear a political fight.
Stand up Mr. President-Elect. Be the liberal voice and say 'No' to the policies of the last eight years. Say 'No' to torture, Guantanamo, and bad regulatory policies.
And most of all, start saying 'No' the voices that keep telling you not to change things too quickly.
yeah, I saw that. But I sense it was also aimed at some of his former colleagues in the Senate.
I think (hope) Obama actually means this generally, regardless of the problem (economic, foreign relations, etc), or where the 'helpful advice' comes from.
I have not read the blind Obama apologists Greenwald refers to, but this comment from their Hero seems to indicate that Obama himself wants to hear input from a wide range of sources. To his credit, he has explicitly stated a fear of becoming walled off and isolated in the WH.
The problem isn't that there's no pressure on Obama. 70000 votes to appoint a special prosecutor on Change.gov is significant.
The problem is that, for the most part, this pressure isn't organized. You have a million splinter factions doing a million different things. Even when those splinter factions significantly agree -- for instance, like the libertarians and the progressives on the rule of law -- they allow their disagreements (over, say, gun control) to rule the day rather than realizing that they need to band together to give the things they agree upon more volume. There's no reasons progressives and libertarians can't band together on the rule of law while still vigorously opposing each other on social spending. That's how politics works; it's not always sane, even when it's effective.
The people lobbying against the rule of law are organized, connected, and well-funded. If we're not the same, we have no chance of convincing the political class to mend their ways. There can be a million of us to every one of them (and, likely, there are), but if we dissipate our energies with infighting and unfocused action, they will be more effective than we are. Every martial artist knows that, in the end, control trumps brute force -- and right now, for the most part, we lack discipline. Lots and lots of passion and good ideas, but very little political discipline.
So I really think that progressives and rule of law folks (and the two groups are NOT identical) really need to think about organizing better. We need to form alliances where appropriate; Republicans and libertarians are not the enemy by default (you can agree on the rule of law, for instance, while disagreeing vehemently on supply-side economics). If we avoid going out of our way to piss off potential allies (when it doesn't violate our principles), that diplomacy may pay off in the future. Of course, diplomacy doesn't trump ideals, so we shouldn't remain mute on issues of importance.
Also, we have to stay focused. It's better to have a "rule of law" PAC than a "progressive PAC" because you're more likely to get people who believe in and support the rule of law if you leave out all of the other (potentially worthy) elements of the progressive platform.
This "beautiful anarchy" of opposition may be a lovely vision of democracy at work, but it's often very ineffective at creating meaningful change, because it is usually too unfocused to make our leaders listen.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
